From my reading Hitler was giving obsurd direct orders in the later stages to hold some insignificant town or take back some other. The negative DRM reflects the interfence in an indirect manner. Thats all.

But its all pie in the sky anyhow as I don't see anything changing.

I raised the question to see how other players felt about it. So now that I see 'some' are on the same page I will try and figure some HR to improve what I see as an issue. Like I wrote earlier, I won't enter another game as Axis w/o some HR to restrict Soviet reserves in 41.

The thing is it should not even be a question. It should be an obvious observation that the German C&C system is better. I don't think it is. At best its marginal.

The fact is as I stated alrdy SHC C&C is better then GHC C&C in wite.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: rmonical

Reserve activation is only part of the story. The bigger story is that for a whole range of morale, initiative and combat checks - the corps HQ hurts rather than helps unless the corps commander has the same rating as the army commander. If the corps commander rating is two below the army commander - it is horrible.

This, of course assumes the one incomplete example in the rules is correct.

Morale is King of the battle field. You simply can't over look the long term effect of disbanding the Corp's HQ's starting TURN 1. The snowball effect of higher morale/10% more rolls in your favor over 200 turns is HUGE!!!!

You can't look at a single turns effect only, you have to take this x 212 = more wins, more morale, more activations, 2x higher SU commitments ect ect. As JB taught me the SU commitment is huge and help win allot of those 2.0-2.5 to 1 odds battles normally lost

Put it to the acid test, Michael. Start a game (against a human preferably) strip out all the non panzer korps from the getgo and play it out. Keep the saves (this means no server game, find somebody you trust.)

Need to be little more nuanced, particularly early on. The army command advantage works for 5 hexes. So outlying divisions still need a corps HQ. The approach I am taking is to delete one or two corps HQ in each infantry army in 1942.

Your WRONG X 2. It is over 11 hexes. Armies front and make up is 9 infantry and 3 panzer. The distance from HQ is 5 hexes north to south east to west. You do not count the hex the HQ is in.

Also I am doing it in 3 games. I started disbanding 1 Corps per turn on turn 1 vs Hugh. The other two games I waited until Spring and started putting armies into defensive set-ups from north to south. In all 3 by 43 there are very few Corps in any armie.

There are huge up side to this as I have been stating for 6 months.

You win more battles, take less loses ect ect. Over time this is huge.

It took me a while to finally get the best way to get the men from HQ's back into combat units, but I have it tweated out.

Also I beleive I found a way to save armament pts, need to test it a little more.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to apply the Corps distance modifier to the first echelon HQ, the Army distance modifier to the second, etc... whichever it is? So Army HQs could perform as first echelon HQs but would operate under the same constraints as Corps HQs. This makes sense: Corps HQs dealt with more tactical stuff, so needed to be closer to the "action". Superior HQs dealt with the operational level, so distance/reactiveness was less of a problem. But if the superior HQs cannot delegate to lower echelons because they have een scrapped, then they have to take over the tactical aspects as well, and then distance matters more. This would help rendering a more accurate distinction between German and Soviet C&C.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to apply the Corps distance modifier to the first echelon HQ, the Army distance modifier to the second, etc... whichever it is? So Army HQs could perform as first echelon HQs but would operate under the same constraints as Corps HQs. This makes sense: Corps HQs dealt with more tactical stuff, so needed to be closer to the "action". Superior HQs dealt with the operational level, so distance/reactiveness was less of a problem. But if the superior HQs cannot delegate to lower echelons because they have een scrapped, then they have to take over the tactical aspects as well, and then distance matters more. This would help rendering a more accurate distinction between German and Soviet C&C.

Possibly, and I can't think of an explanation for the high command range modifier at all. Surely strategic plans and doctrine can be disseminated just as well from afar as up close, and if any HQ down the line needs butt kicking from above, aeroplanes would provide the requisite height.

Not sure if it would make any difference but command might work better inverted from its current form, that is, base values would come from high command and these would be enhanced or degraded by each subordinate HQ down to corps. With enough good officers and staff, each subordinate HQ could add something to the base value.

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.” ¯ Thomas Jefferson

Wouldn't it be a good idea to apply the Corps distance modifier to the first echelon HQ, the Army distance modifier to the second, etc... whichever it is? So Army HQs could perform as first echelon HQs but would operate under the same constraints as Corps HQs. This makes sense: Corps HQs dealt with more tactical stuff, so needed to be closer to the "action". Superior HQs dealt with the operational level, so distance/reactiveness was less of a problem. But if the superior HQs cannot delegate to lower echelons because they have een scrapped, then they have to take over the tactical aspects as well, and then distance matters more. This would help rendering a more accurate distinction between German and Soviet C&C.

The issue as it stands now SHC C&C is better then GHC C&C which is 100% counter to history.

The only way to counter this is to disband GHC Corps. Simply lowering SHC leadership is not going to help as there is an exploit that gets around that.

The more lvls of HQ's the less supplie replasements ect ect the front line units get.

Hopefully witw and wite2 does not have this issue.

German leadership should be far better then allies but it the other way around

Pelton is right. The baseline for the worst case impact of a corps should be the result that would be obtained by the army absent the corps. Pavel apparently does not understand why this should be the case (which is unfortunate) and so we were posting at cross purposes above.

The rules seem to have the right intent:

quote:

The advantage of having a unit attached at the lowest level is that the unit has more HQ units in the chain, only one of which must pass the check.

The implication here is attaching the unit at the lowest level should not reduce the chance of the check passing.

As I mentioned above, this issues needs a clear statement of the requirement which should drive the documentation and the implementation. I proposed the qualitative requirement above. This should be worked into a table of the desired results for various combinations of leaders and ranges.

There are plenty of advantages having corps. First of all army can be much further spread out.

Also, there has been a discussion how leaders should be assigned. It has been clear that for best results, you actually need to assign better leaders to corps, not armies. In such case there is an advantage of having corps in the chain of command. I remember doing calculations myself a year or two back, see thread:

Of course, there is only so many great leaders around, but if you use them in corps, the corps structure is quite advantageous as it gives and extra layer of command. The benefit of the army is that more units can report directly to it, so more units benefit from the better leader - but that is only useful when on defensive.

Finally, there with changes in allowed size of armies (Soviet armies having final 18 capacity, which means that there could be 4 corps in an army, which is roughly equal to capacity of German corps, as Soviet corps is comparable to German division) one cannot really argue that Soviet structure is more efficient.

Also, one need to remember that the 'bad' German leaders would be easily the better army commanders for the Soviets. Soviet Union has only Zhukov who is comparable to the better German leaders.

Yeah, remember that discussion. One of the many debates on who has effectively and in practice a better command structure.

So, I kind of lost track of these two threads. Do I summarize it correctly that Pavel states that the Corps structure has been tested and found superior to a formation without, but Pelton and some others advocate it at the very least on the defense or for situations where stretching out the front is not favoring Axis (so all time but 41)?

It can give direct benefits (manpower, perhaps small but possibly extra trucks if at all needed, and extra armaments), and perhaps, though not sure, benefits in getting more reserves activated. In contrast, having a Corps tier does/should give extra redundancy against missed rolls for MPs, supply etc., but requires that lower tier leaders are not significantly worse in their stats that the better leaders then pushed into Army or GHC levels. Which is then where the tables show that the catch is that he number of sufficiently good leaders (6-7+) is limited, and assuming that some of them will die etc., the German C&C structure will get some worse over the years (which would be what happened)? Is this it at the moment?

For certain having a corps level with a good commander should improve the C&C for the Germans, and give redundancy in case higher HQs screw up (bad rolls, poor leader). But this should also work the other way around, if a Corps is poorly led, the higher HQ with a much better leader should help to prevent screw-ups down the chain, though of course not all the time. A poor corps level command (see Pavel, "6 is lower than 7...") ought to decrease performance, up to the point that not having it involved and have an Army command take over should be better. Sounds just logical to me.

The question is how much worse ought a Corps leader be than a Army leader that this situation should occur? From the tables it seems 1pt difference is quite small, and even for almost 200 turns will probably stay in the statistic noise. But with >=2 pts worse (5 vs 7) things really start going downhill.

What I am wondering at this point is that there perhaps should be a German bonus modifier for Corps level command just as there are the +1 leader modifiers e.g. for the Soviet Tank Corps. Rationale could be that not all officers are suited for higher tier commands: for example being excellent at Division or Corps, but overwhelmed when going up the ladder.

Also, one need to remember that the 'bad' German leaders would be easily the better army commanders for the Soviets. Soviet Union has only Zhukov who is comparable to the better German leaders.

And in bold is the exploit that all smart SHC use to get around the very poor SHC leadership. As has been stated and proven. Z leadership in many cases is 3 or 4 pts higher then most leaders.

If you follow most AAR SHC players get around the poor SHC leaders ship be putting ALLOT of armies under Zhukov, which is the same as disbanding GHC Corp. Its and exploit to get around 2by3's intended design.

Once on the attack SHC only needs to push in one area, so they load up armies under Zhukov, which really starts in 1941.

This is an exploit that should be nerfed as it is a HUGE game changer.

So its not ok for GHC to try and get around a poor system, but ok for SHC?

Yeah, remember that discussion. One of the many debates on who has effectively and in practice a better command structure.

So, I kind of lost track of these two threads. Do I summarize it correctly that Pavel states that the Corps structure has been tested and found superior to a formation without, but Pelton and some others advocate it at the very least on the defense or for situations where stretching out the front is not favoring Axis (so all time but 41)?

It can give direct benefits (manpower, perhaps small but possibly extra trucks if at all needed, and extra armaments), and perhaps, though not sure, benefits in getting more reserves activated. In contrast, having a Corps tier does/should give extra redundancy against missed rolls for MPs, supply etc., but requires that lower tier leaders are not significantly worse in their stats that the better leaders then pushed into Army or GHC levels. Which is then where the tables show that the catch is that he number of sufficiently good leaders (6-7+) is limited, and assuming that some of them will die etc., the German C&C structure will get some worse over the years (which would be what happened)? Is this it at the moment?

For certain having a corps level with a good commander should improve the C&C for the Germans, and give redundancy in case higher HQs screw up (bad rolls, poor leader). But this should also work the other way around, if a Corps is poorly led, the higher HQ with a much better leader should help to prevent screw-ups down the chain, though of course not all the time. A poor corps level command (see Pavel, "6 is lower than 7...") ought to decrease performance, up to the point that not having it involved and have an Army command take over should be better. Sounds just logical to me.

The question is how much worse ought a Corps leader be than a Army leader that this situation should occur? From the tables it seems 1pt difference is quite small, and even for almost 200 turns will probably stay in the statistic noise. But with >=2 pts worse (5 vs 7) things really start going downhill.

What I am wondering at this point is that there perhaps should be a German bonus modifier for Corps level command just as there are the +1 leader modifiers e.g. for the Soviet Tank Corps. Rationale could be that not all officers are suited for higher tier commands: for example being excellent at Division or Corps, but overwhelmed when going up the ladder.

But with >=2 pts worse (5 vs 7) things really start going downhill, Zhukov exploit. Thats why SHC players crow about it as it is a massive exploit to get around all the poor SHC leaders at the front.

Instead of going down hill it is up for SHC. 7 at top with 3-5 at bottom.

The issue for GHC is they have to defend the hole frontage so they can't have weak spots. Disbanding Corp HQ remove weak spots.

Pelton, the trick with Zhukov is putting him STAVKA. This is for increasing success rate on initiative checks globally and getting more reserves to activate. No exploit is involved, it is simply the most efficient way to get around the generally abysmal Soviet initiative ratings. (Their average is below 5 I'm pretty sure.) He backstops all the crap below him so far as reserves go.

There's nobody else with STAVKA access who comes anywhere near that. But down the line you actually want to switch him out of there for a high admin leader. Shaposhnikov or Vasilevsky. Once the Soviets are on the offense he's better off leading a Front.

I do think he's overrated for 1941, but would want to preserve his ability to reach those ratings down the line which is presently not possible.

Also note that, historically, Zhukov WAS appointed to head STAVKA. He was demoted over an argument with Stalin in late August of 1941 and moved to the command of the Reserve Front where he managed to fight a battle of attrition to slow down or stop AGC's drive on Moscow after Smolensk fell. Then he was moved all over the place to give an offensive boost wherever the main Soviet thrust was going to start off from. This worked for almost all of the time other than Operation Mars.

Maybe one of the problems is that the command point cost for a unit directly attached to a superior HQ is the same as the cost if the unit is attached to lower HQs. In reality, HQs delegate matters to lower echelon HQs so that they can focus efficiently on their own stuff. The efficiency of a Front dealing with 50 divisions on a grand operational scale, leaving the sub operational and tactical aspects to Army and Corps HQs, is not the same as the same Front - same amount of brains - having to deal with every aspect, from the widest perspective to micro management of batalions.

Maybe the command cost should go up (doubled?) for each echelon skipped, because skipping echelons simply means more work for the superior HQ. I see no problem with Guderian toying with a couple of Pz divs with his own Army staff, but he can't handle 12 of them, with the same staff, without any help down the ladder, and retain the same efficiency!

ORIGINAL: The Guru I see no problem with Guderian toying with a couple of Pz divs with his own Army staff, but he can't handle 12 of them, with the same staff, without any help down the ladder, and retain the same efficiency!

I think this is very much to the point.Good leaders and HQs should be able to handle more units than poor leaders/HQs, but there should come a point where it starts to effect their efficiency.To exaggerate this for effect, if field marshals could adequately command limitless units with no detrimental effects then you'd just put Zhukov in Stavka and do away with all other HQs.The fact that this would quickly overwhelm any one individual is surely the reason that command echelons exist.

ORIGINAL: The Guru To exaggerate this for effect, if field marshals could adequately command limitless units with no detrimental effects then you'd just put Zhukov in Stavka and do away with all other HQs.The fact that this would quickly overwhelm any one individual is surely the reason that command echelons exist.

Your right Flaviusx its not and exploit so to speak, but it by passes all the crappy leaders. Hes basicly running the hole eastern front in most cases.

timmyab that is whats going on now.

With Zhukov in charge of Stavka and only 2 layers of HQs under him, it basicly puts him in charge of it all. He will have better roll odds then most of the leaders under him.

Maybe one of the problems is that the command point cost for a unit directly attached to a superior HQ is the same as the cost if the unit is attached to lower HQs. In reality, HQs delegate matters to lower echelon HQs so that they can focus efficiently on their own stuff. The efficiency of a Front dealing with 50 divisions on a grand operational scale, leaving the sub operational and tactical aspects to Army and Corps HQs, is not the same as the same Front - same amount of brains - having to deal with every aspect, from the widest perspective to micro management of batalions. Maybe the command cost should go up (doubled?) for each echelon skipped, because skipping echelons simply means more work for the superior HQ. I see no problem with Guderian toying with a couple of Pz divs with his own Army staff, but he can't handle 12 of them, with the same staff, without any help down the ladder, and retain the same efficiency!

Variable command cost for units seems an elegant solution, or at least, the beginning of a solution

Using Zhukov is Stavka is not an exploit, it's the same as using Model or any other German general by the Axis at any point in the command chain. Same if you use him as front commander. There is no way to have units directly led by him over a single army level, as there are penalties (-10%, -25%) which overwhelm his advantage (for those penalties, you are better off to have a decent 6-rating army leader and Zhukov higher up).

Also, if units are not in command range all those advantages are immediately lost; they are also significantly reduced if you have to move the HQ before fight.

Finally if you overload an army, or overload a front, a good leader there is a waste, due to the way the overloading works.

In my games Zhukov sits in Stavka, and that is all what he does. Fiddling around is not what I would recommend or do, but everyone is entitled to his own opinion. If you call putting good leader in Stavka an exploit, I disagree.

T.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

And in bold is the exploit that all smart SHC use to get around the very poor SHC leadership. As has been stated and proven. Z leadership in many cases is 3 or 4 pts higher then most leaders.

If you follow most AAR SHC players get around the poor SHC leaders ship be putting ALLOT of armies under Zhukov, which is the same as disbanding GHC Corp. Its and exploit to get around 2by3's intended design.

Once on the attack SHC only needs to push in one area, so they load up armies under Zhukov, which really starts in 1941.

This is an exploit that should be nerfed as it is a HUGE game changer.

So its not ok for GHC to try and get around a poor system, but ok for SHC?

Been thinking and I am wondering if the Soviets do away with front HQ's and have all Armies report to Stavka under Zhukov would it be better overall?

I know in my game against Pelton I was putting more and more Armies directly under Stavka and it seemed not to be detrimental. It seemed there were more CV's getting doubled to me and I had much flexibility with these Stavka Armies. Moving them around all over the place without any obvious penalties. Stavka never gets overloaded, unlike Fronts. And if all your Air Armies are under Stavka there won't be any issues of different Front's air units not supporting neighbouring Fronts. Interesting.

I guess putting armies at Stavka may work. The issue is the distance - you need to have them close to Stavka for having a decent chance for the successful roll in Stavka. So, Stavka armies benefiting form good leadership cannot be done over the much of the front. Or a relatively short front, with good railway access, that probably can be done and be kind of successful in '43+.

In '41-'42 I use Stavka armies for flexibility as reserves so they can be committed anywhere they are needed, but I usually find that they work worse than the front armies (despite assigning best leaders to those armies under Stavka command). I can keep front HQ close to action when needed (10 hexes is not a problem), and with 6-7 leader at the front HQ the armies perform ok. With Stavka, I do not like to move it too much (as I have a lot of skeleton/refitting units reporting directly to it, which needs to be within command range for possible morale / refit benefits), so the distance between the armies and STAVKA becomes too high for the leadership to matter... And certainly much higher than 10 hexes.

If you use Stavka armies like gap fillers/ emergency reserves, the additional issue I have is the air support - as for getting it you need to haul the airbases around too (which is costly in trucks/rail points). Those also will generally support only Stavka armies, which is a bit of an issue - and generally can be committed only at a single point in the front... If the emergency arises at more than a single point of the front, you can get air support only at one place, not the other (unless you have more air HQ, but those are not that common).

Been thinking and I am wondering if the Soviets do away with front HQ's and have all Armies report to Stavka under Zhukov would it be better overall?

I know in my game against Pelton I was putting more and more Armies directly under Stavka and it seemed not to be detrimental. It seemed there were more CV's getting doubled to me and I had much flexibility with these Stavka Armies. Moving them around all over the place without any obvious penalties. Stavka never gets overloaded, unlike Fronts. And if all your Air Armies are under Stavka there won't be any issues of different Front's air units not supporting neighbouring Fronts. Interesting.

Bad idea. You take an automatic 20% CV hit in combat this way. Color coordination has its benefits.

That said, I am not at all afraid of overloading Fronts all the way into 1943 and even beyond.

Almost certain the 20% penalty applies even to STAVKA units led by an army. I confess I had this idea about ditching Fronts long ago and recall abandoning it precisely for this reason.

I came to the conclusion that if you had to, it was better to roll with overloaded Fronts and Zhukov in STAVKA. The Front commanders are so bad early on that they mostly blow rolls anyways, especially initiative rolls (you do get some decent admin Front commanders from the getgo though.) You avoid worst in combat coordination penalties. (Still some between armies within a Front as I recall.)

Go up to 5 armies per Front, then by 1943 Front command capacity catches up to that. And you can rotate Zhukov out of STAVKA and into a Front. The global benefits matter less on the attack, you want to concentrate power and leadership to crack the Axis Front when you are attacking.

No just tested. No CV hit for Armies under Stavka. This is what I was doing against Pelton. I had a collection of Armies all under Stavka that had their own Stavka Air Force, mostly Guard XXX and Tk/Mech XXX Corp all in Armies under Stavka. They seemed to function better than units attached to Fronts and I had the added flexibility of moving them to where ever I wanted them without the usual reorg penalties associated with Fronts. It worked well on attack. Don't know about defence. But it seems these Stavka Armies with good leaders almost always got 2x CV when attacking.